This. My cousin and his husband both have ccws and they own two very nice M4s (I bought them, customized them and provided training as their engagement present) as well. They both say that they can't understand why more gay men AREN'T pro second amendment. Not only does it provide protection for a routinely abused minority, but, they go to the range, have started hunting, and have joined some shooting groups, and tell me that they have been approached by several members saying that they have really changed their opinion about gays.

JoanHaus:If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.

You need to leave your house more...

In recent months, Darin Fowler had been the victim of several burglaries at his Oroville, Calif. store, Air Cooled Unlimited. Fed up, Fowler, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, decided to arm himself and camp out at the business. While sleeping behind the shop one night, Fowler was awakened by a thief. Fowler drew his gun on the criminal, who complied with the business owner's orders to stay put until police arrived.A subsequent search of the burglar's home uncovered several of the items that had previously been stolen from Fowler. Following the incident Fowler commented, "It was almost closure because now we can relax a little bit now and get back to work." (CBS, Sacramento, Calif. April 8, 2013)

82-year-old Jim Brazel and his wife were asleep at home in Linn County, Ore. when they were awakened by suspicious noises coming from Brazel's workshop. After retrieving a .410 shotgun, Brazel went to investigate and discovered a burglar. Brazel said to the man, "You take one more step and this gun goes off in the middle of your chest. Do what you want." The criminal chose to stay put until police could arrive, 20 minutes later.Following the incident, Brazel spoke of the burglar to local media, stating, "He's making a mistake to try country people... Because 99 percent of us are all the same. We're not afraid to shoot." (NWCN, Portland, Ore. 03/28/13)

Just after a 22-year-old woman got out of her car in Oregon City, Ore., a man grabbed her by her ponytail and dragged and attacked her. The criminal continued his attack until the young woman drew a handgun, which caused the attacker to flee. In describing the incident to local media, Oregon City Police Sgt. Matthew Paschall recalled, "He continued to assault her until she was able to defend herself by producing her legally-owned handgun." (KPTV, Portland, Ore. 04/01/13, KGW, Portland, Ore. 04/02/2013)

A woman in Elm City, N.C. was home sick from work when she heard a banging at her back door. The noise turned out to be a pair of home invaders who forced their way inside as the woman fled to retrieve a gun and hide in a closet. Eventually the burglars made it to the room where the homeowner was hiding, and when they opened the door, the woman fired at them, striking one and causing both to flee.Neighbor Wayne Crumpler spotted the home invaders after hearing one of the criminals screaming for help in the street. As one of the burglars moved towards Crumpler's property, Crumpler retrieved a revolver and ordered the man to halt. The criminals fled, but were captured by police a short time later. Speaking to local media about the incident, Crumpler approved of his neighbor's actions, stating, "She was lucky she knew how to use a handgun and lucky she had it. Because if she hadn't, we might be going to a funeral." (WRAL, Raleigh, N.C. 03/22/13)

A homeowner in Maypearl, Texas was at home watching TV when she heard a suspicious noise at the door. When she got up to investigate, the woman spotted one of a pair of armed criminals trying to get into her home. The homeowner then went find her husband and retrieve a gun. The husband was on another part of the property, but once he heard of the intrusion he went inside the house and retrieved a rifle. A gun battle ensued, with the husband and wife firing at the criminals and the criminals returning fire.The homeowners managed to strike one of the home invaders in the foot, while the other fled in a pickup truck to a nearby field. After succumbing to the armed resistance, both criminals took their own lives.Following the incident, Lt. James Saulter of the Ellis County Sheriff's Department told local media, "Our sheriff is always letting homeowners know to arm themselves. This is one of the reasons why... Sometimes it takes a while for us to get out this far, and they have to take care of themselves." (KENS, San Antonio, Texas 03/21/13)

Seriously, that took less than 5 minutes to find and there are thousands more. But keep pretending you know better, okay?

Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).

Schroedinger's Glory Hole:Is this the thread where we debate the merits of prematurely escalating a thoroughly unlikely and unpredictable situation?

No, in this discussion opponents of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems are to present statistical data showing an increase of crime rates in locales where such systems have been implemented and a demonstration that concealed weapons permit holders were responsible for some of that increase.

Reality check: You can't be reasonable to a bad guy with a gun. Talking your way out of a bullet doesn't work. All you can do is comply, and pray you don't get shot, or a cop comes by (fat chance on the latter).

Be aware that JosephFinn is himself "unreasonable", as he has repeatedly lied about Constitutional issues in previous discussions.

JoanHaus:If anyone is dumb enough to believe that carrying a gun "protects" them in any way, then they richly deserve the mugging wherein they are pistolwhipped with said gun. I've never one one person, outside of trained military and police, who could possibly EVER use their weapon in a high stress situation. None.

Ever wonder why cops fire so many rounds in a firefight? High stress situation. There is a reason people actually fear gang members with military training (happened in CA already) - they're superior to cops in a firefight because they understand combat maneuvers and can fire under duress.

dittybopper:Your titties - Do they need sucking: Looks like they could indeed get all murdery

Let's see: Dressed in all black, coal-scuttle helmets, combat boots, armed to the teeth with guns "designed for the battlefield, where the goal is to rapidly kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, and they have no place in civilian life."

Throw in a "Sieg Heil!" or two, and it might as well be a picture of SS troops during WWII.

This.

Where's Obama and Feinstein to say that the cops don't need those weapons, that they're designed for one thing-to kill as many people as possible, that they're only good for spray firing from the hip, etc.?Where's Joe Biden to tell them they just need double barrel shotguns and that the rifle is harder to use and aim?

If the police want to be viewed and treated as a civilian police force, they need to dress and equip like one. They're much more like a paramilitary organization than a police force, and need to be treated and regulated like one.

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

If the Hughes Amendment is ever repealed that's the first thing I'm buying, new production or old, IDGAF. And if it's not repealed and I happen to live in a free state I might even someday pony up the $20,000 to get a good one.....

enry:Your titties - Do they need sucking: enry: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry. You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME. Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

Or he'll see that there's armed people there, realize that there's no way he'll get out of there alive, and walk back out.

Yeah, because criminals, they are well known for making the most logical, well thought out decisions, right?

So wait, you're saying that a criminal is more likely to go around, scope out all the people who are carrying, then shoot them first, rather than go in, get spooked because multiple people are obviously packing heat, get scared, and run off? If there was a cop in there, you think they'd shoot the cop first then rob the place?

"If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Farkage was countering the assertion, issued by JoanHaus, that absolutely no armed citizen would have the ability to use their firearm in self-defense in a stressful situation. Only a single example is necessary to disprove the assertion, and Farkage presented five.

Farkage:Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes.... each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.

Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.

skozlaw:Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes.... each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....

Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

So many guns, yet so few violent assaults with guns.Hmmm. Pick one, just can't let ya have both in one sentence.

Private gun ownership is steadily increasing while gun crime is steadily decreasing, so I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say.

Guess that puts me in the lead, 'cause I know exactly what you are trying to misrepresent.Your best position at this point is to claim youth and lack of IRW life..

skozlaw:Farkage: Newspaper reports directly countering a "factual" claim that guns aren't ever effectively used to counter a crime are hardly anecdotes, now are they?

Um... yes.... each bit you posted is practically a self-contained definition of the word anecdote. Just because they came out of a newspaper doesn't make them not anecdotes.

Also, I don't think a random farker making a blanket, off the cuff comment qualifies as a "factual claim" in any reasonable sense.

Regardless, I'm not questioning the veracity of your anecdotes, I'm merely pointing out that in the context of the larger debate, they don't exactly mean much from anything but a personal perspective for those involved.

You can't hold "self-defense" up as a valid claim when what you're doing for self-defense is statistically more likely to get you killed than if you'd done nothing. That's like saying your going to stick your head in a bucket of ice once a day to reduce your chances of drowning.

I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.

ZzeusS:"If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."

I just love this quote.Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw. There is no group called "the criminals." Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time. Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them. This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides. Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.

Fark It:scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois. They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be. The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue. Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad. So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade. The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago. This concealed carry bill passed 64-45. Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes. It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto. I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.

The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom. "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...." Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw). How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the NY SAFE act? They want home-rule when it comes to pro-gun legislation, but they're fine with a simple majority when it comes to inflicting their gun laws on the rest of the state. Brandon Phelps and the farking NRA have bent over backwards to appease Chicago, and they've basically taken their ball and gone home.

Yes, fark Pat Quinn and fark Chicago straight up the asshole with a chainsaw. Ugh. Central IL lifer, and its pretty rural/down to earth here. However, when you travel and people refer to your state as "the people's republic of Illinois", its goes to show how farked up Chicago is and how much power they wield. It'd be nice to split into two states, say north of I80 and east of 55 to the lake is Chicago; the rest of the state is Reality. If you drew the lines closer so it was easier to commute into shiatcago but live in Reality, I wonder if there would be a population shift.

I had more than enough safety training when I was much younger, but now to get a handgun permit in chicago I need to get a certification? LOLStranger still, it is impossible to get that safety training class in chicago, given that there are no gun ranges in the city.

http://www.chicago-gun-registration.com/chicagofirearmpermit.htm"There are no public ranges in the City of Chicago. Upon completion of the classroom portion of the course, students will travel to a designated range in the north/western suburbs (determined by date of the class) for the live-fire portion of the course. "

AKA - BULLshiatTalk about an unfair tax preventing poor citizens from being able to get a permit.

Tio_Holtzmann:Fark It: scotty425: Fark It: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No sympathy for Illinois. They were given a fairly reasonable period of time to come up with a law, and every chance to make it as restrictive as they wanted it to be. The fact that they're refusing to come to terms with it is rather tough farking shiat for them.

Seems we've found the Illinois Democrat equivalent of the national Republican budget issue. Lots of words, lots of demands, completely unable to put together a REAL bill that solves the issue to their own satisfaction.

Yes, both sides are bad. So fark the party and vote for the candidate to actually stands for stuff you stand for, regardless of that silly letter after their name.

An Illinois democrat from downstate has been working at concealed carry for a decade. The only people standing in the way are the morons in Chicago. This concealed carry bill passed 64-45. Chicago's "may-issue" counter-proposal only mustered 31 votes. It needs 71 to override home-rule and the governor's veto. I see this outrage at the Senate for failing to pass expanded background checks when the vote was 56-44, but then we have these gun control proponents doing exactly the same thing in Illinois (with a much larger margin and court-imposed deadline, no less).

Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) keeps watering down his HB 997 with more restrictions to try and appease the northern/Chicago Dems and it still can't get passed. That's the funny thing about gun politics in Illinois, neither side really has the numbers to advance their agenda.

The pro-gun side absolutely has the numbers to advance their agenda, they have an uncooperative governor (the most unpopular in the country) and a gaggle of Chicago politicians who want special rules for their fiefdom. "B-b-b-but homerule should let larger cities decide for themselves...." Blow it out your ass (not directed at you, btw). How do you think Western NY feels about being governed out of Manhattan when it comes to the ...

There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.

Schroedinger's Glory Hole:ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."

I just love this quote.Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw. There is no group called "the criminals." Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time. Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them. This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides. Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?

Dimensio:I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.

First of all, gun policy will not be crafted to the specifications of a "thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment " so your request is both absurd and conceited at the same time.

Second of all, statistical analysis doesn't work that way.

Finally, regardless of those other two things which are enough on their own to dismiss your comment outright, there is evidence that if someone does attempt to assault you, your odds of being killed are higher than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's just the first thing I came across. It even includes links to studies that attempt to dismiss it if you're so interested.

way south:BigBooper: Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness. The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.

Hawaii has concealed carry, though it requires a permit. The permit also allows open carry

Dimensio:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."

I just love this quote.Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw. There is no group called "the criminals." Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time. Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them. This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides. Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?

Of course he's not. There isn't one factual study that has ever showed shall-issue has increased crime. In fact, quite the opposite. As gun laws have relaxed, crime across the US has decreased.

If you want even more facts, look at Washington DC. The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it.

skozlaw:Dimensio: I am a single, thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment. Please explain, with mathematical formula where appropriate, how my firearm ownership increases my risk of being killed by use of a firearm. Identify the specific increase of risk; explain what my risk would be were I not a firearm owner and explain what my risk is as a firearm owner.

First of all, gun policy will not be crafted to the specifications of a "thirty-five year-old white male of middle class income who resides in a relatively low-crime suburban environment " so your request is both absurd and conceited at the same time.

Second of all, statistical analysis doesn't work that way.

Finally, regardless of those other two things which are enough on their own to dismiss your comment outright, there is evidence that if someone does attempt to assault you, your odds of being killed are higher than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's just the first thing I came across. It even includes links to studies that attempt to dismiss it if you're so interested.

I am familiar with the study. It surveys a relatively low number participants for a meaningful conclusion, makes no distinction between lawful and unlawful firearm possession (the authors mention excluding individuals under the age of twenty-one, due to such individuals not being able to legally possess a firearm, but they make no mention of individuals over the age of twenty-one who either could not lawfully possess a firearm or who did not hold a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public) and performs no demographic analysis to determine any common factors amongst firearm carriers beyond firearm carry; it did not even attempt to ascertain whether individuals who carried a firearm did so because they believed themselves to be in a position where they experienced a higher than average risk of being shot.

Merely by failing to distinguish legal from illegal firearm carry, the study is useless for assessing any risk of lawful firearm carry in public.

You're also more likely to kill a family member by accident and increased gun ownership correlates with increased risk of suicide.

What are these increased likelihoods? Merely saying an incident to be "more likely" is not as meaningful as stating whether the increased likelihood is 5% or 500%.

And, of course, none of this takes into account non-fatal injury rates.

Have you data regarding such injuries?

Guns are destructive tools. That's all there is to it. Their only inherent purpose is to destroy things. It should hardly be surprising, then, that an inherent risk is associated with their ownership.

I do not deny an inherent risk. I question the claimed magnitude of that risk.

enforcerpsu:The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it

This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.

skozlaw:Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!! That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk. Your "logic" is idiotic.

Silly Jesus:I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness. The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

No, it is the people who follow the rules, obey the law, and fill out the paperwork that are the real extremists and nutjobs. Catch up on your talking point memos, already, before they kick you off the mailing list.

mizchief:Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.

I don't really dispute it. My larger point is not to argue against concealed carry permits per se . It's obvious that permit-holders pose no serious threat of aggression, since the crime rate among them that is the same or better than crimes committed by LEOs. (And that's not even counting all the crimes LEOs commit with the full approval and encouragement of the state, nor all the crimes they get away with because of the complicity of other cops). And the availability of defensive force is increased. So, overall, it's not surprising that shall-issue permitting systems tend to reduce crime, ceteris paribus, relative to blanket gun bans.

My point is that prohibiting open carry is more detrimental to the cause of crime-reduction than is the prohibition of concealed carry.